Beyond confidence workshops: Closing the agency leadership gender gap
The recent data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows there is plenty of work to be done to close the leadership gender gap. Here, leadership expert Michelle Redfern looks at strategies that should be implemented to do just that for Australian agencies.
Considering recent data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and insights from industry analyses, it’s clear that closing the leadership gender gap in Australian agencies requires a shift in focus – from mere confidence building to building business acumen among women leaders.
Understanding the status quo
Recent data shows a persistent disparity in pay within Australian agencies. The median pay gap for base salaries between men and women is 14.5%, widening to 19% when bonuses and other perks are considered. This substantial gap underscores the systemic challenges women face in achieving parity in the workplace. Yet, when it comes to advancing more women into leadership positions and closing the yawning gender pay gap, women are often still given the career advice to ‘just be more confident’.
Challenging the confidence narrative
I thought this was a well considered argument, albeit, I do have some good faith questions for Michelle (i also hate that i have to caveat my intentions here, given how toxic this debate can become).
1. Can any disparity in base salary of leadership position be explained by age and experience? In my lived experience, i have seen multiple instances of women being promoted into leadership positions at younger ages than male counterparts. Now, there’s an entirely plausible explanation here, that these women are bloody good operators, however, there’s also the less charitable argument that this is a box ticking, quota filling exercise, thus, given the correlation between experience, age and salary, i’d love to see any analysis that cuts the data this way, as opposed to the “i only have a hammer” approach of male vs. female
2. I’d make the argument that any mention of “systemic problems” fails to incorporate that most fundamental system – the human system. Study after study show that women are more prone to neuroticism based on the big 5 personality traits, and it’s not a stretch to link higher trait neuroticism with anxiety, stress, lack of belief, and from there, imposter system. Simply concluding that this is all because of patriarchy is disingenuous. Absolutely, there are some legacy systems in place that haven’t always supported women in the workplace (and let’s remember, this is Australia not some backwater where women are not even allowed to work), but that’s not the only reason, in spite of the author appearing to suggest show.